Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems

At first sight this hypothesis seems to encounter serious difficulties. It will be objected that neither the beginning nor the end of embryonic development can possibly depend upon the quantity of nucleoplasm in the segmentation nucleus, since the amount may be continually increased by growth; for it is well known that during embryonic development the nuclear substance increases with astonishing rapidity. By an approximate calculation I found161 that, in the egg of a Cynips, the quantity of nuclear substance present at the time when the blastoderm was about to be formed, and when there were twenty-six nuclei, was even then seven times as great as the quantity which had been contained in the segmentation nucleus. How then can we imagine that embryonic development would ever be arrested from want of nuclear substance, and if such deficiency really acted as an arresting force, how then could development begin at all? We might suppose that when germ-plasm is present in sufficient quantity to start segmentation, it must also be sufficient to complete the development; for it grows continuously, and must presumably always possess a power equal to that which it possessed at the beginning, and which was just sufficient to start the process of segmentation. If at each ontogenetic stage, the quantity of nucleoplasm is just sufficient to produce the following stage, we might well imagine that the whole ontogeny would necessarily be completed.

The flaw in this argument lies in the erroneous assumption that the growth of nuclear substance is, when the quality of the nucleus and the conditions of nutrition are equal, unlimited and uncontrolled. The intensity of growth must depend upon the quantity of nuclear substance with which growth and the phenomena of segmentation commenced. There must be an optimum quantity of nucleoplasm with which the growth of the nucleus proceeds most favourably and rapidly, and this optimum will be represented in the normal size of the segmentation nucleus. Such a size is just sufficient to produce, in a certain time and under certain external conditions, the nuclear substance necessary for the construction of the embryo, and to start the long series of cell-divisions. When the segmentation nucleus is smaller, but large enough to enter upon segmentation, the nuclei of the two first embryonic cells will fall rather more below the normal size, because the growth of the segmentation nucleus during and after division will be less rapid on account of its unusually small size. The succeeding generations of nuclei will depart more and more from the normal size in each respective stage, because they do not pass into a resting-stage during embryonic development, but divide again immediately after their formation. Hence nuclear growth would become less vigorous as the nuclei fell more and more below the optimum size, and at last a moment would arrive when they would be unable to divide, or would be at least unable to control the cell-body in such a manner as to lead to its division.

The first event of importance for embryonic development is the maturation of the egg, i. e. the transformation of the nucleus of the germ-cell into a nuclear spindle and the removal of the ovogenetic nucleoplasm by the separation of polar bodies, or by some analogous process. There must be some cause for this separation, and I have already tried to show that it may lie in the quantitative relations which obtain between the two kinds of nucleoplasm contained in the nucleus of the egg. I have suggested that the germ-plasm, at first small in quantity, undergoes a gradual increase, so that it can finally oppose the ovogenetic nucleoplasm. I will not further elaborate this suggestion, for the ascertained facts are insufficient for the purpose. But the appearances witnessed in nuclear division indicate that there are opposing forces, and that such a contest is the motive cause of division; and Roux162 may be right in referring the opposition to electrical forces. However this may be, it is perfectly certain that the development of this opposition is based upon internal conditions arising during growth in the nucleus itself. The quantity of nuclear thread cannot by itself determine whether the nucleus can or cannot enter upon division; if so, it would be impossible for two divisions to follow each other in rapid succession, as is actually the case in the separation of the two polar bodies, and also in their subsequent division. In addition to the effects of quantity, the internal conditions of the nucleus must also play an important part in these phenomena. Quantity alone does not necessarily produce nuclear division, or the nucleus of the egg would divide long before maturation is complete, for it contains much more nucleoplasm than the female pronucleus, which remains in the egg after the expulsion of the polar bodies, and which is in most cases incapable of further division. But the fact that segmentation begins immediately after the conjugation of male and female pronuclei, also shows that quantity is an essential requisite. The effect of fertilization has been represented as analogous to that of the spark which kindles the gunpowder. In the latter case an explosion ensues, in the former segmentation begins. Even now, many authorities are inclined to refer the polar repulsion manifested in the nuclear division which immediately follows fertilization, to the antagonism between male and female elements. But, according to the important discoveries of Flemming and van Beneden, the polar repulsion in each nuclear division is not based on the antagonism between male and female loops, but depends upon the antagonism and mutual repulsion between the two halves of the same loop. The loops of the father and those of the mother remain together and divide together throughout the whole ontogeny.

What can be the explanation of the fact that nuclear division follows immediately after fertilization, but that without fertilization it does not occur in most cases? There is only one possible explanation, viz. the fact that the quantity of the nucleus has been suddenly doubled, as the result of conjugation. The difference between the male and female pronuclei cannot serve as an explanation, even though the nature of this difference is entirely unknown, because polar repulsion is not developed between the male and female halves of the nucleus, but within each male and each female half. We are thus forced to conclude that increase in the quantity of the nucleus affords an impulse for division, the disposition towards it being already present. It seems to me that this view does not encounter any theoretical difficulties, and that it is an entirely feasible hypothesis to suppose that, besides the internal conditions of the nucleus, its quantitative relation to the cell-body must be taken into especial account. It is imaginable, or perhaps even probable, that the nucleus enters upon division as soon as its idioplasm has attained a certain strength, quite apart from the supposition that certain internal conditions are necessary for this end. As above stated, such conditions may be present, but division may not occur because the right quantitative relation between nucleus and cell-body, or between the different kinds of nuclear idioplasm, has not been established. I imagine that such a quantitative deficiency exists in an egg, which, after the expulsion of the ovogenetic nucleoplasm in the polar bodies, requires fertilization in order to begin segmentation. The fact that the polar bodies were expelled proves that the quantity of the nucleus was sufficient to cause division, while afterwards it was no longer sufficient to produce such a result.

This suggestion will be made still clearer by an example. In Ascaris megalocephala the nuclear substance of the female pronucleus forms two loops, and the male pronucleus does the same; hence the segmentation nucleus contains four loops, and this is also the case with the first segmentation spheres. If we suppose that in embryonic development, the first nuclear division requires such an amount of nuclear substance as is necessary for the formation of four loops,—it follows that an egg, which can only form two or three loops from its nuclear reticulum, would not be able to develope parthenogenetically, and that not even the first division would take place. If we further suppose that, while four loops are sufficient to start nuclear division, these loops must be of a certain size and quantity in order to complete the whole ontogeny (in a certain species), it follows that eggs possessing a reticulum which contains barely enough nuclear substance to divide into four segments, would be able to produce the first division and perhaps also the second and third, or some later division, but that at a certain point during ontogeny, the nuclear substance would become insufficient, and development would be arrested. This will occur in eggs which enter upon development without fertilization, but are arrested before its completion. One might compare this retardation leading to the final arrest of development, to a railway train which is intended to meet a number of other trains at various junctions, and which can only travel slowly because of some defect in the engine. It will be a little behind time at the first junction, but it may just catch the train, and it may also catch the second or even the third; but it will be later at each successive junction, and will finally arrive too late for a certain train; and after that it will miss all the trains at the remaining junctions. The nuclear substance grows continuously during development, but the rate at which it increases depends upon the nutritive conditions together with its initial quantity. The nutritive changes during the development of an egg depend upon the quantity of the cell-body which was present at the outset, and which cannot be increased. If the quantity of the nuclear substance is rather too small at the beginning, it will become more and more insufficient in succeeding stages, as its growth becomes less vigorous, and differs more from the standard it would have reached if the original quantity had been normal. Consequently it will gradually fall more and more short of the normal quantity, like the train which arrives later and later at each successive junction, because its engine, although with the full pressure of steam, is unable to attain the normal speed.

It will be objected that four loops cannot be necessary for nuclear division in Ascaris, since such division takes place in the formation of the polar bodies, resulting in the appearance of the female pronucleus with only two loops. But this fact only shows that the quantity of nuclear substance necessary for the formation of four loops is not necessary for all nuclear divisions; it does not disprove the assumption that such a quantity is required for the division of the segmentation nucleus. In addition to these considerations we must not leave the substance of the cell-body altogether out of account, for, although it is not the bearer of the tendencies of heredity, it must be necessary for every change undergone by the nucleus, and it surely also possesses the power of influencing changes to a large extent. There must be some reason for the fact that in all animal eggs with which we are acquainted, the nucleus moves to the surface of the egg at the time of maturation, and there passes through its well-known transformation. It is obvious that it is there subjected to different influences from those which would have acted upon it in the centre of the cell-body, and it is clear that such an unequal cell-division as takes place in the separation of the polar bodies could not occur if the nucleus remained in the centre of the egg.

This explanation of the necessity for fertilization does not exclude the possibility, that, under certain circumstances, the substance of the egg-nucleus may be larger, so that it is capable of forming four loops. Eggs which thus possess sufficient nucleoplasm, viz. germ-plasm, for the formation of the requisite four loops of normal size, (namely, of the size which would have been produced by fertilization), can and must develope by the parthenogenetic method.

Of course the assumption that four loops must be formed has only been made for the sake of illustration. We do not yet know whether there are always exactly four loops in the segmentation nucleus163. I may add that, although the details by which these considerations are illustrated are based on arbitrary assumptions, the fundamental view that the development of the egg depends, ceteris paribus, upon the quantity of nuclear substance, is certainly right, and follows as a necessary conclusion from the ascertained facts. It is not unlikely that such a view may receive direct proof in the results of future investigations. Such proof might for instance be forthcoming if we were to ascertain, in the same species, the number of loops present in the segmentation nucleus of fertilization, as compared with those present in the segmentation nucleus of parthenogenesis.

The reproductive process in bees will perhaps be used as an argument against my theory. In these insects, the same egg will develope into a female or male individual, according as fertilization has or has not taken place, respectively. Hence, one and the same egg is capable of fertilization, and also of parthenogenetic development, if it does not receive a spermatozoon. It is in the power of the queen-bee to produce male or female individuals: by an act of will she decides whether the egg she is laying is to be fertilized or unfertilized. She ‘knows beforehand’164 whether an egg will develope into a male or a female animal, and deposits the latter kind in the cells of queens and workers, the former in the cells of drones. It has been shown by the discoveries of Leuckart and von Siebold that all the eggs are capable of developing into male individuals, and that they are only transformed into ‘female eggs’ by fertilization. This fact seems to be incompatible with my theory as to the cause of parthenogenesis, for if the same egg, possessing exactly the same contents, and above all the same segmentation nucleus, may develope sexually or parthenogenetically, it appears that the power of parthenogenetic development must depend on some factor other than the quantity of germ-plasm.

Although this appears to be the case, I believe that my theory encounters no real difficulty. I have no doubt whatever, that the same egg may develope with or without fertilization. From a careful study of the numerous excellent investigations upon this point which have been conducted in a particularly striking manner by Bessels165 (in addition to the observers quoted above), I have come to the conclusion that the fact is absolutely certain. It must be candidly admitted that the same egg will develope into a drone when not fertilized, or into a worker or queen when fertilized. One of Bessels’ experiments is sufficient to prove this assertion. He cut off the wings of a young queen and thus rendered her incapable of taking ‘the nuptial flight.’ He then observed that all the eggs which she laid developed into male individuals. This experiment was made in order to prove that drones are produced by unfertilized eggs; but it also proves that the assertion mentioned above is correct, for the eggs which ripen first and are therefore first laid, would have been fertilized had the queen been impregnated. The supposition that, at certain times, the queen produces eggs requiring fertilization, while at other times her eggs develope parthenogenetically, is quite excluded by this experiment; for it follows from it, that the eggs must all be of precisely the same kind, and that there is no difference between the eggs which require fertilization and those which do not.

But does it therefore follow that the quantity of germ-plasm in the segmentation nucleus is not the factor which determines the beginning of embryonic development? I believe not. It can be very well imagined that the nucleus of the egg, having expelled the ovogenetic nucleoplasm, may be increased to the size requisite for the segmentation nucleus in one of two ways: either by conjugation with a sperm-nucleus, or by simply growing to double its size. There is nothing improbable in this latter assumption, and one is even inclined to inquire why such growth does not take place in all unfertilized eggs. The true answer to this question must be that nature generally pursues the sexual method of reproduction, and that the only way in which the general occurrence of parthenogenesis could be prevented, was by the production of eggs which remained sterile unless they were fertilized. This was effected by a loss of the capability of growth on the part of the egg-nucleus after it had expelled the ovogenetic nucleoplasm.

The case of the bee proves in a very striking manner that the difference between eggs which require fertilization, and those which do not, is not produced until after the maturation of the egg, and the removal of the ovogenetic nucleoplasm. The increase in the quantity of the germ-plasm cannot have taken place at any earlier period, or else the nucleus of the egg would always start embryonic development by itself, and the egg would probably be incapable of fertilization. For the relation between egg-nucleus and sperm-nucleus is obviously based upon the fact that each of them is insufficient by itself, and requires completion. If such completion had taken place at an early stage the egg-nucleus would either cease to exercise any attractive force upon the sperm-nucleus, or else conjugation would be effected, as in Fol’s interesting experiments upon fertilization by many spermatozoa; and, as in these experiments, malformation of the embryo would result. In Daphnidae I believe I have shown166 that the summer-eggs are not only developed parthenogenetically, but also that they are never fertilized; and the explanation of this incapacity for fertilization may perhaps be found in the fact that their segmentation nucleus is already formed.

We may therefore conclude that, in bees, the nucleus of the egg, formed during maturation, may either conjugate with the sperm-nucleus, or else if no spermatozoon reaches the egg may, under the stimulus of internal causes, grow to double its size, thus attaining the dimensions of the segmentation nucleus. For our present purpose we may leave out of consideration the fact that in the latter case the individual produced is a male, and in the former case a female.

It is clear that such an increase in the germ-plasm must depend, to a certain extent, upon the nutrition of the nucleus, and thus indirectly upon the body of the egg-cell; but the increase must chiefly depend upon internal nuclear conditions, viz. upon the capability of growth. We must further assume that the latter condition plays the chief part in the process, for everywhere in the organic world the limit of growth depends upon the internal conditions of the growing body, and can only be altered to a small extent by differences of nutrition. The phyletic acquisition of the capability of parthenogenetic development must therefore depend upon an alteration in the capability of growth possessed by the nucleus of the egg.

This theory of parthenogenesis most nearly approaches Strasburger’s views upon the subject, for he also explains the non-occurrence of parthenogenetic development by the insufficient quantity of nucleoplasm remaining in the egg after the expulsion of polar bodies. The former theory differs however in that the occurrence of parthenogenesis is supposed to be only due to an increase of this nucleoplasm to the normal size of the segmentation nucleus. Strasburger assumes that ‘specially favourable conditions of nutrition counteract the deficiency of nuclear idioplasm,’ while it seems to me that nutrition must be considered as only of secondary importance. Thus in bees, as above stated, the same egg may develope parthenogenetically or after fertilization, the nucleus being subject to the same conditions of nutrition in both cases. Strasburger167 considers that parthenogenesis may be interpreted by one of three possible explanations. First, he suggests that especially favourable nutrition may lead to the completion of the nuclear idioplasm. But if this assumption be made, we must ask why a part of the idioplasm should be previously expelled, when immediately afterwards the presence of an equal amount becomes necessary. Such a view can only be explained by the above-made assumption that the expelled nucleoplasm has a different constitution from that possessed by the nucleoplasm which is afterwards formed. It is true that we do not yet certainly know whether a polar body is expelled in eggs in which parthenogenesis occurs, but we do know that the egg of the bee passes through the same stages of maturation whether it is to be fertilized or not. I can hardly accept Strasburger’s second suggestion, ‘that under some favourable conditions of nutrition half [or perhaps better, a quarter] of the idioplasm of the egg-nucleus is sufficient to start the processes of development in the cyto-idioplasm.’ Finally, his third suggestion, ‘that the cyto-idioplasm, nourished by its surroundings and thus increased in quantity, compels the nucleus of the egg to enter upon division,’ presupposes that the cell-body gives the impulse for nuclear division, a supposition which up to the present time remains at least unproved. The ascertained facts appear to me to indicate rather that the cell-body serves only as a medium for the nutrition of the nucleus, and Fol’s recently mentioned observations, which have been especially quoted by Strasburger in support of his theories, seem to me to rather confirm my conclusions. If supernumerary sperm-nuclei penetrate into the egg, they may, under the nutritive influence of the cell-body, become centres of attraction, and may take the first step towards nuclear and cell-division by forming amphiasters. Such nuclei cannot control the whole cell-body and force it to divide, but each one of them, having grown to a certain size at the expense of the cell-body, makes its influence felt over a certain area. Strasburger is quite right in considering this process as a ‘partial parthenogenesis.’ Such partial parthenogenesis presumably occurs in all egg-nuclei, but the latter cannot attain to complete parthenogenesis when, as in Fol’s supernumerary sperm-nuclei, their powers of assimilation are insufficient to enable them to reach the requisite size. As before stated, the cell-body does not force the nucleus to divide, but vice versa. It would, moreover, be quite erroneous to suppose that parthenogenetic eggs must contain a larger amount of nutritive material in order to facilitate the growth of the nucleus. The parthenogenetic eggs of certain Daphnidae (Bythotrephes, Polyphemus) are very much smaller than the winter-eggs, which require fertilization, in the same species. It is also an error for Strasburger to conclude that ‘it has been established with certainty that favourable conditions of nutrition cause parthenogenetic development in Daphnidae, while unfavourable conditions cause the formation of eggs requiring fertilization.’ It is true that Carl Düsing168, in his notable work upon the origin of sex, has attempted, in a most ingenious manner, to prove, from my observations and experiments on the reproduction of Daphnidae, ‘that winter or summer-eggs are formed according to the nutritive condition of the ovary.’ I do not, however, believe that he has succeeded in this attempt, and at all events it is quite clear that the validity of such conclusions is not fully established. I have observed that the maturing eggs break up in the ovaries and are absorbed in those Daphnidae (Sida) which are starved because sufficient food cannot be provided in captivity. Hence such animals live, as it were, at the expense of their descendants; but it would be quite erroneous to conclude with Düsing, from the similarity which such disappearing egg-follicles bear to the groups of germ-cells which normally break up in the formation of winter-eggs, that with a less degree of starvation winter-eggs would have been formed. Düsing further quotes my incidental remark that the formation of resting-eggs in Daphnia has been especially frequent in aquaria ‘which had been for some time neglected, and in which it was found that a great increase in the number of individuals had taken place.’ He is entirely wrong in concluding that there was any want of food in these neglected aquaria; and if I had foreseen that such conclusions would have been drawn, I might have easily guarded against them by adding that in these very aquaria an undisturbed growth of different algae was flourishing, so that there could have been no deficiency, but, on the contrary, a great abundance of nutritive material. I may add that since that time I have conducted some experiments directly bearing upon this question, by bringing virgin females as near to the verge of starvation as possible, but in no case did they enter upon sexual reproduction169.